I received the two comments below in response to my comment (to a previous comment from her) that she did not do her homework. I promised a more detailed response and here it is.
I have done immense amounts of research and readings about the subject, and have a decent understanding of the IPCC. I am not a scientist and don't pretend to understand many of the theories. Maurice Strong who had much to do with the creation of the IPCC was caught and striped of many of his awards for corruption. The scientists don't control the research projects, the political leaders do. And since the first IPCC report that attributed climate change to natural events rather than cause by man, has now become the opposite. It seems the main goal of the IPCC is to end the debate, not prove the science...Climategate. How is that science? Emails that revealed a coordinated effort to keep many esteemed scientist who found that the data didn't add up out of the discussion, and had a preconceived agenda and outcome even before the data was gathered.
It's a shame you had to bring up big oil, I was hoping for once that argument wouldn't be made. So lets get back to the scientists that are supposed to be getting that big oil money, and forget for a minute about the politically motivated (carbon tax), lets support alternate energy IPCC. Big oil has HUGE investments tied up in "green" energy. Big Oil also has huge amounts of funding going to many environmental groups, including the likes of the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace. So accusing genuine scientists taking big oil money is a classic tactic to avoid close examination of the BILLIONS of dollars funding the Global warming project. According to the Washington Post, British Petroleum has donated over $600 million to green groups. The fact that climate change activists have enjoyed such a powerful funding advantage, but yet insist that skeptical AGW scientist are being bought off is pretty ironic!
Where is your source from Tol's quote?
If you read my comment below in response to Christophers'... "The amount of science is absolutely massive..." I have stated, "I am not a scientist and don't pretend to understand many of the theories."... Shows that, in no way, I pretend to understand the math and physics that support the papers that many scientists (award winning, honored, and former IPCC members), challenge with support and theories, that CO2 is the main driving force of climate change. I have actually read the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper, so you are incorrect in your criticism. Though I must confess I didn't understand the details but did get the general hypothesis of it. And that's why I, and other average citizens that don't specialize in climatology, physics or other scientific fields, have to rely on scientists expertise on the matter. Not only do I see a large number of scientist that don't support AGW, as a great indicator that the "science is settled", I also consider the growing number of scientist that are defecting from the IPCC as another indicator that the science is far from settled.
What bother's me most is the lag of CO2 behind rise or decline in temperature. It shows that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate. Milankovich cycles, Solar Activity and Cosmic radiation are the more likely candidates. However those elements would be extremely difficult to tax.
Trying to insult me, "Please cite papers you've actually read..." does not sway me to listen to your opinions with an open mind. It's really tiring that many AGW advocates bully and insult.
Maurice Strong is most certainly a crook. Here are some references that tell about how he fled to China after being caught accepting nearly a million dollars in bribes while with the U.N. Oil-For-Food Program:
The only sources I found that said he was stripped of any awards are denier websites and they do not provide any sources of that information. This does not mean it did not occur, it just means I cannot confirm it. In any event, we can conclude he is a crook.
How much did he have with the formation of IPCC? Again, that is something I cannot find any reference to. He is credited with putting together the first U.N. sponsored group of climate scientists, but he moved on to other things after that. He may, or may not, have been involved with the formation of the IPCC.
So what? The record of Maurice Strong has no effect on the science. It is completely irrelevant. This is what is known as a straw man argument. It is an attempt to divert attention from the subject of conversation. The subject is the validity of climate science.
So, let’s get a little bit close to the science. You mentioned the first IPCC assessment report and claimed “the first IPCC report that attributed climate change to natural events rather than cause by man” and the record shows that is a false claim. Take a look:
In fact, they stated, “We are certain of the following: there is a natural greenhouse effect...; emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface.” That is a far cry from what you claim.
Again, so what? It is irrelevant. Are you going to say we are not learning? Are you saying climate change is not real because we have increased our understanding of the climate? Are you saying increasing the amount of data we have showing climate change is real is somehow proof that it isn’t real? That first report came out in 1990. That was 24 years ago. Are you surprised we have increased our understanding since then?
Then, you go into Climategate. This is one of those instances were deniers have been proved so wrong so many ways and by so many people that it is a very telling sign whenever someone mentions it. It says you don’t care about the facts. The fact are this: the emails were reviewed by eight independent groups that found no wrong-doing on the part of the scientists; the emails were quoted out of context and even edited to make it sound as if something was going on wrong. If you are serious, do some homework on the matter instead of just condemning innocent people on the words of a bunch of denier websites.
Then, you try to defend big oil and same it is a “shame” I brought them up. Why, in the world, would anyone want to have a discussion about climate change and insist big oil be left out? You speak of funding, let’s take a look at where that funding is going.
The fossil fuel industry spent over $700 million dollars to get Republicans friendly to their interests elected to Congress in 2014.
Let’s not forget they are providing an average of $70 million per year to fund the denier industry.
This is just a mere sampling. It is not possible to discuss climate change without talking about the villains behind it (yes, I called them villains).
I got my Tol quote here:
It was included in my original article on Tol’s work:
Then, you make a most curious statement, “And that's why I, and other average citizens that don't specialize in climatology, physics or other scientific fields, have to rely on scientists expertise on the matter.”
The problem is you don’t rely on the scientists. The scientists are giving you a definite conclusion with a massive amount of evidence to support it, and you are rejecting it. Don’t say you rely on the scientist then reject them in favor of some denier blog written by someone that doesn’t have any science background. If you have real questions, go to the climate scientists most involved in the research – Real Climate.org. http://www.realclimate.org/ They have an excellent file of posting addressing question anyone might have, written by climate scientists for the general public.
You then discuss the CO2 lagging issue and natural cycles. I addressed natural cycles here:
RealClimate.org addressed the lagging CO2 here:
I hope this addressed your concerns.